Impact of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Types on TOEFL Junior Candidates’ Receptive Skills and Examining Their Perceptions Toward the Efficiency of These Skills
Subject Areas :Ali Shirvani 1 , Abdollah Baradaran 2 * , Esmaeil Bagheridoust 3
1 - Department of English and Persian literature, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of English, Islamic Azad university of Central Tehran
3 - Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch
Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Explicit Feedback, Listening, Metalinguistic Feedback, Reading, Recast, TOEFL Junior,
Abstract :
The purpose of this study was to determine how the three types of CF—explicit, metalinguistic, and recast—affect receptive skills and to find out how TOEFL Junior applicants felt about the effectiveness of these CFs in these two domains. In this study, an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. Using a convenience selection technique, 130 boys and girls who were TOEFL Junior candidates at a TOEFL Junior center served as the study's initial partici-pants. The Pearson Longman Placement Test was used to make sure that each participant's level of language proficiency was the same. Consequently, based on the outcomes of the placement test, 100 candidates were chosen to be participants. Subsequently, they were split up into four groups at random: the control group, group 2 (metalinguistic), group 3 (recast), and the first ex-perimental group (explicit). The study's pre-test was then given, which consisted of the listening and reading comprehension portions of the TOEFL Junior Test. Ten sessions of treatment were then conducted. The post-test included of the listening and reading comprehension portions of the TOEFL Junior Test, which were given after these sessions. Twelve students from the three experimental groups were then given a semi-structured interview. The results of this investiga-tion demonstrated that, in terms of applicants' hearing and reading ability, explicit CF is superior to recast; however, there was no discernible difference between explicit and metalinguistic CF. The qualitative results also showed that the participants had a favorable attitude regarding using various CFs to improve their receptive skills.
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehen-sion strategies: A review of the litera-ture. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 521-531.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and in-ferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 99(2), 311.
Carrier, K. A. (2003). Improving high school English language learners' sec-ond language listening through strate-gy instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 383-408.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teach-ing. Electronic journal of foreign lan-guage teaching, 1(1), 14-26.Clement, J. (2007). The impact of teaching ex-plicit listening strategies to adult in-termediate-and advanced-level ESL university students.
Daller, M. H., & Phelan, D. (2013). Predict-ing international student study suc-cess. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 173-193.
Hagaman, J. L., & Reid, R. (2008). The ef-fects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 29(4), 222-234.
Hong-Nam, K., Leavell, A. G., & Maher, S. (2014). The relationships among re-ported strategy use, metacognitive awareness, and reading achievement of high school students. Reading Psy-chology, 35(8), 762-790.
Kokhan, K. (2012). Investigating the possi-bility of using TOEFL scores for uni-versity ESL decision-making: Place-ment trends and effect of time lag. Language testing, 29(2), 291-308.
Kokhan, K. (2013). An argument against using standardized test scores for placement of international undergrad-uate students in English as a Second Language (ESL) courses. Language Testing, 30(4), 467-489.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2013). Their ef-fects on second language perfor-mance. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 364.
Lightbown PM, Spada N (1999). How Lan-guages are Learned (Revised Edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotia-tion of form in communicative class-rooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Shera, P. (2014). School Effects, Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in Reading Performance: A Multilevel Analysis. International Education Studies, 7(11), 28-39.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language teaching, 40(3), 191-210.